Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation
Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementati...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of health-system pharmacy 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1077 |
---|---|
container_issue | 14 |
container_start_page | 1071 |
container_title | American journal of health-system pharmacy |
container_volume | 76 |
creator | Bucci, Tyler G Hedrick, Tanner L Roberts, Patricia A Lin, Kinny South, Mark D Willoughby, Ian R Eckel, Stephen F Hess, Elizabeth T Eberwein, Samuel Amerine, Lindsey B |
description | Abstract
Purpose
The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated.
Methods
For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods.
Results
The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method.
Conclusion
The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ajhp/zxz097 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2267404804</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2267404804</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFP3DAQhS1UVCjtiXuVU1WpCoztOI6PFQKKhNRLe7Ym3gkJeOPUTtiyv76moT1yGmv8zZvnZ8ZOOZxxMPIc7_vpfP97D0YfsGOupCqFAXiTz6BNKaARR-xdSvcAXDRQv2VHksuaN9ocs-HyEf2C8xDGInTFXcTHYUtzHFzZYqJNMZPrx-DD3VOJKQ1pzr1diA-dD7uiC7EYw9jjHuMmLKnI13HwVEwxbBY350oTxr_y79lhhz7Rh5d6wn5eXf64-Fbefr--ufh6WzpZK1lqAZq3jRbUoFGq1Y5kS41qDThSSI2uEJToJMjWtOhq0K4StSbEzhnk8oR9XnWzh18Lpdluh-TIexwpW7QiwxVUDVQZ_bKiLoaUInV2isMW45PlYJ-ztc_Z2jXbTH98EV7aLW3-s__CzEC1Arvgcw7pwS87irYn9HNvAfLGWuj8IdzkNyooc4vLPPZpHQvL9KqBPyaslkg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2267404804</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</creator><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Purpose
The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated.
Methods
For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods.
Results
The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method.
Conclusion
The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1079-2082</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-2900</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31361879</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods ; Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods ; Drug Compounding - methods ; Humans ; Medication Errors - prevention & control ; Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration ; Software ; Time Factors ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>American journal of health-system pharmacy, 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077</ispartof><rights>American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31361879$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedrick, Tanner L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Kinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>South, Mark D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Ian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckel, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Elizabeth T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eberwein, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><title>American journal of health-system pharmacy</title><addtitle>Am J Health Syst Pharm</addtitle><description>Abstract
Purpose
The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated.
Methods
For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods.
Results
The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method.
Conclusion
The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</description><subject>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods</subject><subject>Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods</subject><subject>Drug Compounding - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medication Errors - prevention & control</subject><subject>Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>1079-2082</issn><issn>1535-2900</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFP3DAQhS1UVCjtiXuVU1WpCoztOI6PFQKKhNRLe7Ym3gkJeOPUTtiyv76moT1yGmv8zZvnZ8ZOOZxxMPIc7_vpfP97D0YfsGOupCqFAXiTz6BNKaARR-xdSvcAXDRQv2VHksuaN9ocs-HyEf2C8xDGInTFXcTHYUtzHFzZYqJNMZPrx-DD3VOJKQ1pzr1diA-dD7uiC7EYw9jjHuMmLKnI13HwVEwxbBY350oTxr_y79lhhz7Rh5d6wn5eXf64-Fbefr--ufh6WzpZK1lqAZq3jRbUoFGq1Y5kS41qDThSSI2uEJToJMjWtOhq0K4StSbEzhnk8oR9XnWzh18Lpdluh-TIexwpW7QiwxVUDVQZ_bKiLoaUInV2isMW45PlYJ-ztc_Z2jXbTH98EV7aLW3-s__CzEC1Arvgcw7pwS87irYn9HNvAfLGWuj8IdzkNyooc4vLPPZpHQvL9KqBPyaslkg</recordid><startdate>20190702</startdate><enddate>20190702</enddate><creator>Bucci, Tyler G</creator><creator>Hedrick, Tanner L</creator><creator>Roberts, Patricia A</creator><creator>Lin, Kinny</creator><creator>South, Mark D</creator><creator>Willoughby, Ian R</creator><creator>Eckel, Stephen F</creator><creator>Hess, Elizabeth T</creator><creator>Eberwein, Samuel</creator><creator>Amerine, Lindsey B</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Copyright American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190702</creationdate><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><author>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods</topic><topic>Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods</topic><topic>Drug Compounding - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medication Errors - prevention & control</topic><topic>Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedrick, Tanner L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Kinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>South, Mark D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Ian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckel, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Elizabeth T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eberwein, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of health-system pharmacy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bucci, Tyler G</au><au>Hedrick, Tanner L</au><au>Roberts, Patricia A</au><au>Lin, Kinny</au><au>South, Mark D</au><au>Willoughby, Ian R</au><au>Eckel, Stephen F</au><au>Hess, Elizabeth T</au><au>Eberwein, Samuel</au><au>Amerine, Lindsey B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</atitle><jtitle>American journal of health-system pharmacy</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Health Syst Pharm</addtitle><date>2019-07-02</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>14</issue><spage>1071</spage><epage>1077</epage><pages>1071-1077</pages><issn>1079-2082</issn><eissn>1535-2900</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Purpose
The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated.
Methods
For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods.
Results
The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method.
Conclusion
The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>31361879</pmid><doi>10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1079-2082 |
ispartof | American journal of health-system pharmacy, 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077 |
issn | 1079-2082 1535-2900 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2267404804 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE |
subjects | Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods Drug Compounding - methods Humans Medication Errors - prevention & control Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration Software Time Factors Workflow |
title | Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T04%3A05%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20gravimetric-based%20technology-assisted%20workflow%20for%20nonhazardous%20sterile%20product%20preparation&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20health-system%20pharmacy&rft.au=Bucci,%20Tyler%20G&rft.date=2019-07-02&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=14&rft.spage=1071&rft.epage=1077&rft.pages=1071-1077&rft.issn=1079-2082&rft.eissn=1535-2900&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ajhp/zxz097&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2267404804%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2267404804&rft_id=info:pmid/31361879&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ajhp/zxz097&rfr_iscdi=true |